Messages in this thread | | | From | Valentin Schneider <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/8] sched/fair: Tweak misfit-related capacity checks | Date | Wed, 03 Feb 2021 18:42:59 +0000 |
| |
On 03/02/21 15:15, Qais Yousef wrote: > On 01/28/21 18:31, Valentin Schneider wrote: >> @@ -113,6 +113,13 @@ int __weak arch_asym_cpu_priority(int cpu) >> */ >> #define fits_capacity(cap, max) ((cap) * 1280 < (max) * 1024) >> >> +/* >> + * The margin used when comparing CPU capacities. >> + * is 'cap' noticeably greater than 'ref' >> + * >> + * (default: ~5%) >> + */ >> +#define capacity_greater(cap, ref) ((ref) * 1078 < (cap) * 1024) > > nit: can we use cap1 and cap2 and make the implementation use '>' instead of > '<'? ie: > > #define capacity_greater(cap1, cap2) ((cap1) * 1024 > (cap2) * 1078) > > this is more intuitive to read IMHO. Especially few lines below we have > > return capacity_greater(ref->sgc->max_capacity, sg->sgc->max_capacity); > > which pass 'ref->...' as cap which can be confusing when looking at the > function signature @ref. >
Unfortunate naming indeed... And I suppose it can't hurt to follow the argument "declaration" order.
| |